Home Affairs tasked with ensuring SAns who lost citizenship due to Citizenship Act
JOHANNESBURG – The Home Affairs Department is now tasked with ensuring the reinstatement of South Africans who lost their citizenship due to the implementation of the Citizenship Act.
The Constitutional Court last Thursday confirmed an order of constitutional invalidity declared by the Supreme Court of Appeal, giving effect to the declaration.
The provision stipulates that major South Africans who voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country, outside of marriage, cease to be South Africans in accordance with the act.
The apex court ordered that all South Africans who lost their citizenship as a result of this provision are deemed not to have lost it.
The order of the constitutional court has a retrospective effect, meaning that it is intended to have a backdated consequence, affecting events that preceded it.
In this matter, all citizens who previously lost their citizenship will be deemed not to have lost it.
The constitutional court found that there was no rational reason why a South African would automatically lose their citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country.
Although Section 6 subsection 2 allows persons who may lose their citizenship as a result of the operation of the act to apply to the Minister of Home Affairs to retain their South African status, the court finds that this does not save the provision from unconstitutionality.
Justice Steven Majiedt, 'The existence of a ministerial power to exercise discretion in terms of Section 6(2) to alter what is otherwise an automatic loss of citizenship is no answer to the question of why citizenship must be lost in the first place.
'The court further notes that section 6(2) of the act provides no criteria at all on how the minister's discretion is to be exercised and what it's bounds are. The legislature argues that dual citizenship is permissible, subject only to ministerial discretion. This reasoning is unclear and utterly irrational.'
The apex court also finds that the provision gives the minister broad, unchecked power, which cannot be defended given the violation of fundamental rights.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
SCA sends home affairs minister packing in ZEP appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the minister of home affairs against the Johannesburg high court order on Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEPs), which give about 180,000 Zimbabweans a special dispensation to lawfully remain in South Africa. The judgment also clears the path for the Zimbabwean Immigration Federation to return to court and argue that it is only parliament, and not the home affairs minister, which can decide whether to extend the ZEP regime. In 2023, the Johannesburg high court set aside a decision by former minister Aaron Motsoaledi to terminate the ZEP regime and to reconsider his decision, following a fair process. The SCA's judgment on Friday said that counsel for the minister told the court that 'the order is being implemented, and ... the minister is following a fair process'. But the federation wants to go back to court to argue that ZEP-holders and their children enjoy constitutional rights in South Africa. If these are to be limited, only parliament may do so — 'by enacting a law of general application,' says the SCA's judgment. The SCA did not give a view on whether that argument was correct, but it rejected an appeal by the minister that would have prevented the federation from ever making it. When the high court gave its order, the federation was one of the parties in the litigation, along with the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF). Theirs were two separate cases, which were heard together. While the federation and the HSF both wanted similar orders, at that time, from the high court, their grounds were different. And while the HSF asked the court for a final order, the federation only sought an interim interdict — it wanted to argue its main case at a later date. The court gave a final order, as sought by the HSF, and also the interim interdict sought by the federation. The minister had already tried, and failed, to appeal against the HSF order. In this case, the minister approached the SCA on appeal, saying the interim interdict was 'redundant' since the court had already granted a final order to the HSF. In Friday's judgment, the SCA disagreed. Judge of Appeal David Unterhalter said the federation's case 'raised distinctive grounds of review', which laid the basis for an argument that was not raised or argued earlier — about the powers of the minister when there were constitutional rights at stake. If the federation's argument was to be accepted, it 'would not permit the minister to terminate the ZEP regime'. 'That is a remedial outcome of a considerably more far-reaching kind because it reaches into the future and is not based on a reconsideration,' said Unterhalter. The redundancy argument could therefore not hold, he said.
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
What happens if Afrikaner 'refugees' want to come home?
A second batch of Afrikaner 'refugees' have settled into the US, and thousands more are expected to arrive. However, with South African-born Elon Musk's ongoing feud with President Donald Trump, concern is mounting among those who now call America home. More importantly, will they be allowed to return to South Africa? It's no secret that President Donald Trump's view of South Africa was influenced by his former right-hand man, Elon Musk. Born in Pretoria, and having left at just 17, the world's richest man has actively accused his country of birth of promoting 'white genocide', 'farm confiscation,' and 'racist laws'. With Trump now threatening to cut all government contracts to Musk, and possibly distance himself from him altogether, what does this mean for the Afrikaner 'refugees' already in the US? What does Elon Musk's rant mean for Afrikaner 'refugees'? Images via X The group of white South Africans was offered asylum based on proving their fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Under US and international immigration laws, refugees who have received asylum cannot simply be deported to their country of persecution. Legislation also vigorously protects their rights to stay in their new adoptive country. However, their status can be terminated should they be found guilty of serious crimes or if they fraudulently sought asylum. According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), there is a strict vetting process for those who seek refugee status in the country. Once resettled in the US, refugees are permitted to work immediately. They will be eligible for a green card a year later. However, there are also stringent travel restrictions in place. The USCIS states that all refugees must obtain permission via a travel document before they depart the US. Failure to do so could result in asylees being denied re-entry into the US. These actions could also strip asylees of their refugee status, resulting in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. In the case of Afrikaners, returning to South Africa – considered the country of 'persecution' – could come at a cost. Here is how… Refugees who visit SA without prior permission shall be presumed to have abandoned their asylum unless they can establish compelling reasons for their return. Refugees are expected to explain the reason for their return in the process of obtaining permission. Returning to one's country of claimed persecution could result in termination of asylum if there are fundamental changes in circumstances back home. Termination could also occur due to fraud in the asylum application. This happens if an applicant is not eligible for refugee status. Returning to SA for business or pleasure can be considered evidence that the refugee's alleged fear of persecution is not genuine. For Afrikaner 'refugees' hoping to return home willingly for good, voluntary repatriation is always an option. Organisations like the UNHCR help those who wish to travel back to their countries by providing financial assistance. According to the South African Department of International Relations, 'refugees' would be welcomed back as citizens. However, they would have to revoke their status in order for this to happen. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X , and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Elon Musk's influence on Trump: A closer look at the Afrikaner genocide debate
US president Donald Trump shakes hands with billionaire businessman Elon Musk on May 30 before their public feud. Image: Allison Robbert / AFP The public fallout between US President Donald Trump and South African-born billionaire Elon Musk is not bothering one of the political parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU). Trump and Musk took to their social media platforms this week over differences in his administration's spending. Musk stated that Trump would not have won the 2024 presidential elections without his campaign spending hundreds of US dollars. Freedom Front Plus leader Dr Corné Mulder said he did not believe the approach by Trump or his administration would be changed due to the bitter feud and affect its response to allegations of 'genocide' against white Afrikaner farmers in South Africa. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Mulder was responding to questions about whether the fallout could see Trump dramatically changing his views on the white Afrikaner genocide in South Africa. Musk is widely regarded as a person who wielded immense influence on Trump. 'It is incorrect to assume that US foreign policy is based on the influence of specific individuals. Unhappiness with SA is not something new. Even during the (Joe) Biden administration, a bipartisan bill was introduced in the US Congress to relook the US-SA relationship,' he said. Political analyst Professor Dirk Kotzé said Musk has in the past been influential in these issues, but there are many other South Africans who are also influential and close to Trump. 'So it will not necessarily change this matter, I don't think Musk was the one who dealt with or promoted the issue of genocide necessarily, he was more there in terms of black economic empowerment and employment equity and those government policies that he criticised, so he will continue with that until there is an agreement about Starlink,' Kotzé explained. He added: 'When it comes to the Afrikaner issues and what is called genocide, I don't think he was ever a key person in that, I think that is more where the conservatives – AfriForum, Solidarity, (South African-born American conservative political commentator and radio host) Joe Pollak and others – came in to promote that idea.' Kotzé said his understanding is that there has been a smaller, second group that went to the US after the earlier AfriForum-Solidarity delegation, but without any public attention because it created much more disturbances within US politics in general. 'So I think it has become a controversial issue in the US, and Trump wants to avoid that. I can see that this is not going to be a public project in the future, it is not something they will announce in the media, welcome them, and have public events,' he predicted. Kotzé also anticipates that this initiative or project will, over time, actually slow down. 'I don't see it developing strong momentum that it will be something very prominent in the future. I think it is going to disappear over time,' he said.
